You were, as usual being critical. You were saying that we should make churches temples (effectively getting rid of temples) and that they are only for members to feel special because Christ only cared about the poor, implying that Christ would not approve and that they are not built through revelation but by man's design alone. But Christ did not only care about the poor. He has always instructed His people to build holy places of worship and to keep them special. President Nelson isn't suggesting doing away with them, or that they are no longer important. And I don't think he would accept that they should be less than perfect in their build, (which is what takes the time.) I'm happy to accept temples shouldn't be ostentatious, I'd agree. Whether they are ostentatious may be a matter of opinion. The 3 temples I've been to are small and I'd say that the decor is far from ostentatious at them, rather that they are elegant but others may disagree. Perhaps President Nelson would and he wants to change the decor. No problem, i've been to many places of worship and some do ostentatious far more than we do and some do much simpler. The design and decor don't matter in the long run. The holiness of a place is dependent on Christ's presence. I have felt it in a few places that belong to other groups, but always in the Church's chapels and in abundance at the Temple. Even non members feel it at the Temple. My father is against religion and God, but he will talk about how special our temples are. So I cannot accept that temples are not important to our Lord or that the work done in them doesn't matter or that they can be combined with our chapels. Temples are a house of the Lord. They should be our very best work. When the great cathedrals were built in the Middle Ages, conditions were difficult for most, but they built magnificent creations of their best work as praise to God. Our temples are special, built to praise God, so requiring our best and they are a refuge from the world and long may they continue to be whilst we also help the poor and needy. As I said, Christ supported both and asks us to do both at the same time.

Christ wasn't just about caring for the needy and the poor physically, ie with actual bread and water. He sent out missionaries to preach to all, to spread His gospel. He was concerned with nourishing our spirits and He made it clear there were times when worship was more important and temples should be used reverently and kept pure. His words in the New Testament support the four goals of the Church and we must do all of them all the time, not concentrate on one goal only or place one goal above the others. Caring for others is important and so too are the others. The Lord confirms this in the revelations recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants book. Thus temple work is as important as feeding the poor, keeping temples pure is as important as feeding the poor, mission work is as important and having places to welcome all is as important - it's not right to spend everything (time and money) on just one thing. You tend to concentrate everything on the poor, others (no one specific) may do the same on temple work or missionary work, but our Lord asks us to do it all.

Yep, that's why He didn't tell his disciples to preach to all the nation's, why He wasn't at all concerned about what went on in the Temple grounds, nor ever preached there, why He chastised Mary for using expensive oil on Him and it's why he never spoke about spiritual matters being more important than earthly matters... It seems to me that the Lord when on the Earth was as concerned with ALL parts of what we call the four fold mission as He is concerned for ALL parts in the latter days, given His revelations to the prophets in the past as well as now. We are to do all of it, not privilege one over others.

The pranking of his parents seems harmless, it's clear who did it and why and the parents can easily replace the picture. The church programme stunt is different. 1st, no one knows if it's a mistake or on purpose. 2nd, it's not possible to replace the picture before use - it's either throw the whole thing and do without or use it. 3rd, its led to the stupid question at the end of the article and makes the Church a laughing stock and 4th, playing a joke about Christ in a sacred meeting seems sacrilegious! Its a question of time and place. Not all types of fun and laughter are appropriate in all places.

No, LDS membership is not at a different level. There are requirements and expectations on all Christians. I didn't pay a tithe in the way the Church of Jesus Christ accounts for it but I always added to the collection plate. (Still do when I visit other churches) And doing so is expected. And yes, all the churches I've joined have recorded my membership. For all I know, I might still be on record! I havent officially resigned from any of them, just stopped going. When you join any church, you don't know all their doctrines even if you have lessons beforehand (which I did for one church but not the others) (I've been an official member of 3 churches before the LDS). And some of them don't teach you much at all about their doctrine. No, you don't follow the prophet, they don't have prophets but you are expected to follow the minister and the synod's decisions. You really can't find out about churches from the Internet and a few visits. The LDS have a few different ideas and temples but they are really not so different. It was easy to fit in. As for the requirements, nothing forces you to comply if you don't want to and aren't bothered with attending the temple. Otherwise no one would ever drift away would they? (A lot of churches are a lot more formalised and organised than some evangelical churches btw).

I can't speak for others but I was christened (baptised) (into a different Christian church) at 4. I don't remember much about it or being asked (my parents made the decision for me, though they may also have asked me). However, I do remember going to the church every week for several years (until we moved away) and often on my own (well without my family, I went with an adult family friend!) and loving it! Even at that age, I believed in Christ and I'm sure I would have agreed to being christened if asked. I loved my church family then (and now). I wouldn't have known much about that church, but I knew Jesus and I was happy to go to that church. As an adult I made a different decision. Children know enough to be baptised. And baptism doesn't force you to remain if you don't want to. I stopped going to my 1st church when I was 8 and haven't been back since (for a number of reasons.)

Sure, you can be happy single, or not, in the same way as you can be happy or not with a partner. Being with the right partner is better than being single though. As for having a life, I know plenty of couples who do things on their own at times. I dont see why being a wife and mother precludes also being an individual, its all a matter of balance.If you want to do something you just need to decide to do it. You need to stop talking and take action.

Well we know it would have no legs in the UK since someone already tried and got very short shrift and a lot of costs. I don't see it succeeding in the US either and not because of some batty conspiracy theories.

There are benefits in being single and it's quite possible to be happy for years and even a lifetime without a partner, but I don't know any single person who doesn't, in the end, want a partner. They may be content with single hood and choosy about a partner, but if the perfect one came along, they wouldn't say no. And that includes me. There are a ton of downsides to being single. Be careful what you wish for.

Your 1st statement is not true. I thought about issuing a CFR. The temple prep class needs work, imo, but a person preparing for the temple can read or study whatever they want to, though probably many choose not to. There are several books and articles by apostles and general authorities that talk about the temple and the covenants. Even 10 years ago, when I was preparing, I found a lot of information on the church website and realised that the scriptures reference much of what happens in the temple. And now, the church has more specific videos on its website. You don't have to go through blind.
As for the meat being carnage, that's a very subjective and hyperbolic term. Which is why many stay.

So, you are able to speak for Emma and Brigham's wives and know better than them what they experienced? When we have their own words about it? What would you say if someone else denied them their voices or feelings about something? They do not describe it as hell. As for Jeff's, some still support him, despite his crimes. (Amazingly, in my opinion, but they do). You can think of it as hell, you cannot impute that to others. If you complain that others can't say they would be ok with adultery unless they've been through it, you can't put your feelings onto others who have experienced Polygamy. You may not be happy with their choice, and you may try as many do, to remove their choice and their voice and claim they were coerced / manipulated, but some are ok with Polygamy (even now, see Sister Wives). Every person has their own choice/belief /desire to make. Do you not believe that?

This is where you keep going wrong. Maybe it's because I'm a convert, but I'm not aware of any teaching of the COJCOLDS that suggests there is anyone between us as individuals and the Lord and there is certainly no middle man for me. There are men and women in certain positions who organise the church and provide counsel and who ask me to help the Lords work in some way. What do you think a pastor does? How do you think other churches are organised and administered? In other churches, I helped in primary and ran a youth club and helped with social events. My then minister and the church stewards asked me. The youth club kids wanted to do the church garden. We had to ask the minister who had to ask his supervisor for permission. Members don't just do things. There is always a hierarchy and an organisation. But there is never anyone in the COJCOLDS or in any other church that is between you and the Lord.

All believers in Christ live up to that name. These are the latter days as opposed to the days of the bible and book of Mormon. And saints is merely another word for Christian or follower of Christ. To be a saint is to believe in Him and be trying to follow Him. It doesn't mean saintly, perfect, devout, working miracles, virtuous etc. The secular meaning is not the same as the biblical meaning which is the meaning inherent in the Church's name. If we were all saints in the way you are thinking of the term, we probably wouldn't need the Church. ☺
If I remember correctly, the name use suggestion said using just the Church of Jesus Christ was acceptable.
Al is a terrific lady.

I for one would say nothing. I don't pay much attention to the figures now, either finances or membership. I never paid any attention to those things in any other church that I have been a member of either. I will keep my promises and do what I can in my small part of the world and let others worry about their part. The Lord led me to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I trust Him to look after it for me if He wants me to remain a member. If we grow larger, so be it. If we shrink in numbers, we can still continue. If the Apostles waste billions of dollars or pay themselves huge sums, the Church can still continue. If the Church is well managed, if we have beautiful temples, if we only feed the poor, it is neither more or less true. The testimony of the Holy Ghost to me about where to worship is what matters to me and I don't think that is based on numbers of members and on finances.